Thread: Re: Copyright question: GPL patches for non-GPL packages (fwd)

Hi,

I read this message on the debian development list. Thought it might be
of interest to scrappy on the PostODBC thingie...

Maarten

_____________________________________________________________________________
|     Maarten Boekhold, Faculty of Electrical Engineering TU Delft,   NL    |
|           Computer Architecture and Digital Technique section             |
|                          M.Boekhold@et.tudelft.nl                         |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 23:47:23 +0100
From: David Frey <david@eos.lugs.ch>
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Copyright question: GPL patches for non-GPL packages

On Thu, Jan 22 1998 13:18 +0100 Andreas Jellinghaus writes:
> if you want to mix gpl'ed software with other software, that other
> software's licence may not conflict with the gpl.
>
> for example, you can mix software with bsd style licencens (or x window
> licence) with GPL'ed software, becuase these two licences do not
> conflict. the mix will be under GPL'ed.
[...]
> example: this is allowed
> bsd + gpl
[...]
I recall reading once ago, that the standard BSD license is incompatible
with the GPL because of point 4.:

4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
   may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
   without specific prior written permission.

which is an additional restriction, which is not allowed under the GPL:

 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.

So people who wanted to have both licenses applicable on their code,
cancelled the fourth paragraph of the original BSD license...

David


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Maarten Boekhold wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I read this message on the debian development list. Thought it might be
> of interest to scrappy on the PostODBC thingie...

    Damn, to say I hate copyrights isn't saying enough :)  Okay, I
guess the first thing to note is that PostODBC actually falls under the
LGPL vs the GPL, which appears to have slightly more lax restrictions on
how it gets included with other packages...

    Now, with that in mind, should we remove the PostODBC stuff from
the interfaces directory an dmove it to the contrib directory?  Or remove
it all together?  Or leave it where it is?



 > > Maarten
>
> _____________________________________________________________________________
> |     Maarten Boekhold, Faculty of Electrical Engineering TU Delft,   NL    |
> |           Computer Architecture and Digital Technique section             |
> |                          M.Boekhold@et.tudelft.nl                         |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 23:47:23 +0100
> From: David Frey <david@eos.lugs.ch>
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Copyright question: GPL patches for non-GPL packages
>
> On Thu, Jan 22 1998 13:18 +0100 Andreas Jellinghaus writes:
> > if you want to mix gpl'ed software with other software, that other
> > software's licence may not conflict with the gpl.
> >
> > for example, you can mix software with bsd style licencens (or x window
> > licence) with GPL'ed software, becuase these two licences do not
> > conflict. the mix will be under GPL'ed.
> [...]
> > example: this is allowed
> > bsd + gpl
> [...]
> I recall reading once ago, that the standard BSD license is incompatible
> with the GPL because of point 4.:
>
> 4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
>    may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
>    without specific prior written permission.
>
> which is an additional restriction, which is not allowed under the GPL:
>
>  6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
> Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
> original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
> these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
> restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
> You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
> this License.
>
> So people who wanted to have both licenses applicable on their code,
> cancelled the fourth paragraph of the original BSD license...
>
> David
>
>
> --
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
> debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
> Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
>

Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org

>
> On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Maarten Boekhold wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I read this message on the debian development list. Thought it might be
> > of interest to scrappy on the PostODBC thingie...
>
>     Damn, to say I hate copyrights isn't saying enough :)  Okay, I
> guess the first thing to note is that PostODBC actually falls under the
> LGPL vs the GPL, which appears to have slightly more lax restrictions on
> how it gets included with other packages...
>
>     Now, with that in mind, should we remove the PostODBC stuff from
> the interfaces directory an dmove it to the contrib directory?  Or remove
> it all together?  Or leave it where it is?
>

Leave it.  The posting talks about intermixing source code.  In our
case, it is separate, and that is enough.  BSDI ships GNU utilities, but
does not have the entire OS under GPL, and that is GPL, not LGPL.

--
Bruce Momjian
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us

On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> >
> > On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Maarten Boekhold wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I read this message on the debian development list. Thought it might be
> > > of interest to scrappy on the PostODBC thingie...
> >
> >     Damn, to say I hate copyrights isn't saying enough :)  Okay, I
> > guess the first thing to note is that PostODBC actually falls under the
> > LGPL vs the GPL, which appears to have slightly more lax restrictions on
> > how it gets included with other packages...
> >
> >     Now, with that in mind, should we remove the PostODBC stuff from
> > the interfaces directory an dmove it to the contrib directory?  Or remove
> > it all together?  Or leave it where it is?
> >
>
> Leave it.  The posting talks about intermixing source code.  In our
> case, it is separate, and that is enough.  BSDI ships GNU utilities, but
> does not have the entire OS under GPL, and that is GPL, not LGPL.

    True enough...FreeBSD ships a bunch of GPL stuff as well, but its
core kernel is still under Berkeley :)

Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org